Evaluation of Acacia Catechu and Low-Level Laser in the Treatmentof Stage II Periodontitis

Faculty of Dental Medicine for Girls60 enrolled

Overview

Evaluation of Acacia catechu and Low-Level Laser in the Treatment of Stage 2 Periodontitis.

* Assess the effectiveness of A. catechu gel (local delivery) adjunctive to non surgical therapy in the treatment of stage chronic periodontitis. Clinical and biochemical evaluation. * Compare the effectiveness of A. catechu gel (local delivery) and low-level laser adjunctive to non-surgical therapy in the treatment of stage chronic periodontitis. Clinical and biochemical evaluation.

Study Type

INTERVENTIONAL

Allocation

RANDOMIZED

Purpose

TREATMENT

Masking

NONE

Enrollment

Conditions

Chronic Periodontitis

Interventions

Acacia catechuOTHER

local delivery of acacia catechu gel in patient with chronic periodontitis stage 2

Low Level Laser TherapyOTHER

low-level laser as an adjunctive therapy in patient with chronic periodontitis stage 2

phase 1 therapy chronic periodontitisOTHER

patient with chronic periodontitis stage 2 will go for phase one therapy only

Eligibility

Sex: ALLMin age: 30 YearsMax age: 50 Years

Medical Language ↔ Plain English

Inclusion Criteria: 1. Motivated patient with good oral hygiene. 2. Age ranges from (30-50) years. 3. Free from any systemic disease according to the Cornell Medical Index (16). Exclusion Criteria: 1. Patients who received periodontal treatment over the 12 months preceding the study. 2. Patients who consumed antibiotics or anti-inflammatory drugs within the last 3 months. 3. Previous or current radiation or immunosuppressive therapies. 4. Pregnant \& lactating women. 5. Patient with orthodontic appliances. Or having partial dentures. 6. Patient with parafunctional habits.

Locations (2)

Mona Mansour

Cairo, Egypt

Mona Mansour

Cairo, Egypt

Outcomes

Primary Outcomes

inflammatory biomarker

Measuring Interleukin 1 beta level

Time frame: 0 and 6 month evaluation

Antioxidant biomarker

measuring total antioxidant capacity.

Time frame: 0 and 6 month evaluation

Secondary Outcomes

gingival index

clinical evaluation of GI score from (0 to 3) 0 = normal is the best value. 3 = diseesed (the worst value). 0=Normal gingiva. 1. = mild inflammation, a slight change in color, slight edema, no bleeding on probing. 2. = moderate inflammation, redness, edema, and glazing; bleeding on probing. 3. = severe inflammation, marked redness and edema, ulceration, and the tendency to spontaneous bleeding.

Time frame: 0,1,3,6 month evaluation

clinical attachment level or loss

* Clinical Attachment Level (CAL) or loss: Clinical attachment level was measured from the cementoenamel junction to the base of the pocket using a University of Michigan probe with the University of North Carolina periodontal probe (UNC15) around each tooth. * measurement unite by millimetre * zero clinical attachment level means no periodontitis * clinical attachment loss is a critical parameter differentiated betwwn gingivitis and periodontitis * the less the number, the better the case improvement. * cal of 2 mm is better than cal of 4 mm.

Time frame: 0,1,3,6 month evaluation

plaque index

evaluation of PI score from (0-3) 0 is the best value; 3 is the worst. 0=No plaque is visible, even when a probe is used. 1. = Some plaque is visible only when a probe is used to skim the tooth surface. 2. = A visible amount of plaque can be seen without a probe. 3. = abudant amount of plaque at gingival margin, interdental spaces filled with plaque.

Time frame: 0,1,3,6 month evaluation

Data from ClinicalTrials.gov

This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.